Complan Vs Horlicks:

Comparative Advertising

Presented by:
Shashwat Nagalia
Riya Chaudhary
Comparative Advertising
• The term ‘comparative advertising’ refers to any form of
advertising in which a trademark owner attempts to enjoy
pecuniary benefits from a comparison between his product,
service, or brand and that of a competitor.
• HORLICKS
Horlicks was invented by William Horlick (William) and his
brother James Horlick (James) (1844-1921) in 1873. The brothers
belonged to Gloucestershire, England.

• COMPLAN
Complan, owned by the Heinz Company, was one of the most
popular health drinks in India. The name Complan was coined
from the words "COMplete" and "PLANned". Complan was
introduced by Glaxo Laboratories (Glaxo) in the UK during World
War II (1939-1945), as an essential nutritional supplement for
soldiers at the frontlines.
Brand Wars
• The advertisements talked about how their respective brand was better
than the other and showed the competitor's product in bad light when
compared to the company's products.

• In the first advertisement the ‘Complan Mummy’ tells the Horlicks

Mom that she’s compromising her child’s health by buying a product
made of cheap ingredients and that her (fat) child would not grow as
fast as a child who was fed Horlicks. The Complan mother then picks
out a Complan packet and explains how it has 23 vital ingredients
which would ensure fast growth of a child. The ad then shows the
Horlicks mother visibly pushing away a package bearing the Horlicks
trademark explaining how she had been misled and how she would no
longer repeat the same mistake again.
• There was a print advertisement in leading Delhi newspapers
comparing the ingredients of Complan and Horlicks with specific
emphasis on the fact that some of the ingredients in Horlicks are
‘cheap’ and how a Child’s growth would be compromised by
consuming Horlicks. The advertisement also draws attention to a
scientific report by the National Institute of Nutrition which
substantiates the fact that Complan has good ingredients etc.

• This 30 seconds advertisement placed both the products i.e. Complan

& Horlicks next to each other, compares the prices and according to
Heinz, passes disparaging comments against the quality and nutritional
value of Complan when compared to Horlicks.
Complan Vs Horlicks: Advertisement

• On Indian television the first high profile case of direct

comparative advertising was between GSK’s Horlicks and Heinz
India’s Complan.

• Both the companies ran direct comparative advertisements

against each other, each claiming that it is better than the other.

• Years ago, Complan had indirectly targeted Horlicks by claiming in

its ‘I am a Complan Boy’ advertisement that complain was better
than another Brand ‘H’. However, now the comparisons between
two have become more aggressive and blatant.
• Horlicks in one such advertisement attacked Complan saying that
while Complan makes a child taller, Horlicks makes him ‘Taller,
sharper and smarter ‘.

• Horlicks further mocked complain saying that while Complan costed

Rs 170, Horlicks was priced at just Rs 132 i.e. Horlicks is cheaper
than Complan. Heinz later sued GSK and the advertisement was
taken off air.

• In case of Horlicks and Complan, the former is the market leader

with 60 % market share while latter has just 15 % of the market
share.

• However, later Complan also came out with print advertisements

where Complan was compared to Horlicks on parameters like Main
ingredients, Protein content, Protein quality, number of nutrients
etc.
New pepsodent Vs Colgate
• Colgate filed a case against Hindustan Unilever Limited’ when the
latter advertised that its product new Pepsodent was ‘102 % better
than the leading Toothpaste’. Since at that time the market share of
Colgate was 59 % and that of Pepsodent was 27%, Colgate was
automatically assumed to be the leading toothpaste.

• The court ruled in favor of Colgate stating that since Colgate had
been the leader in oral care segment for so many years the word
toothpaste had become synonymous with its name.

• From all these examples it can be concluded that if in comparative

advertising the other brand is identifiable and is described as
inferior without substantial proof then it becomes a case of
disparagement of that product.
• Cherry Blossom vs. Kiwi
Kiwi liquid wax polish in one of its advertisements showed
that while the liquid from its bottle was not dripping, the
liquid from another bottle ‘X’ was dripping. The shape of this
bottle ‘X’ was similar to Cherry Blossom- Kiwi’s competitor-
for which they had design registration also. The
advertisement thus became a case of disparagement since it
could be identified with ‘Cherry Blossom’.

• Pepsi Vs Coke
The Famous Pepsi vs. Coke advertisement where Pepsi
highlighted its superiority by saying that most people
preferred the taste of Pepsi over coke in a blind taste test.
Thank You